Why US goverment did not restart fighting and did not try to conquer Canada again after Battle of New Orleans in 1814 ?

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,714
Stockport Cheshire UK
Possibly they were.

That fella, Redcoat, tends to bring out the fighter in me.

My read of Article the Ninth is the UK recognizing that the tribes in American territory were defeated. There would never be a threat from the tribes as there was during '09-'13 again, aside from the Southwestern natives, who were never defeated by arms.
Claiming the Natives were defeated because the treaty gave them the exact same terms as the USA is an interesting argument. :zany:
:D
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,102
The language implying the tribes got the situation before the war was actually very favorable for them, as they had lost badly. It was in fact enforced in about the same way as treaties between the US and individual tribes.
 
Aug 2018
373
Southern Indiana
No, that is a subjective reading of the text to further your argument.
The treaty merely states that if the Native tribes refrain from hostile acts the two powers will restore all possessions , rights and privileges the tribes enjoyed before the war nothing more.
Also, Britain is in no way confirming the tribes status as defeated. it is merely agreeing that if the Natives respect the treaty they will also enjoy the return of the status quo as before the war which is the exact same terms as the United States and Britain will enjoy
There is nothing in the treaty where the British agree to stop arming the natives, the subject is totally ignored in the treaty
I agree, Article 9 was somewhat ambiguous and vague. Madison took it very seriously, but others in his government thought the idea of turning back the clock was impossible. Madison sent significant amounts of gifts and offers of peace to not only the tribes involved in the wars of that era, but also to tribes in the far west across the Mississippi that little was known about. Madison gave significant reserves of land to the Ottawa, Shawnee, Wyandot, Miami, Seneca and a few others in what is now Ohio and Indiana. Madison even increased the reserves of the Wyandot and Shawnee when they complained in person to Madison. Much effort was put into the Treaty of Springwells in 1815 which mostly reaffirmed the Treaty Of Greenville and did not ask for or demand any land concessions from the tribes.
 
Likes: redcoat

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
13,889
Navan, Ireland
I expected better than the "woe is me" tactic, frankly.

You brought "American history is wrong".... flat out invitation to a fight right at the outset of this thread. And now you are portraying yourself as Kevin the Virtuous. So damn virtuous. Right.
Sorry who is doing such a 'tactic'? you are the one who is using petty insults and avoiding questions and I realise you are upset with the very idea that anything American could possibly be wrong but sorry if as the OP claimed 'American history' claims that Britain was defeated in 1814 (not sure it does , in popular history perhaps but not sure that applies to educated/academic circles) then that is simply wrong.

Now I have debated with Americans on here and they generally claim that it was a 'draw' or indecisive contest and while I disagree I can see that they can make a sound argument but sorry I have never seen a sound argument for it being an American victory--but of course in your opinion that simply makes me a Troll.

I do not see where you get ---"..portraying yourself as Kevin the Virtuous. So damn virtuous. Right.." you started the stupid petty insults not me, I will avoid being so childish, all I did was question you, in fact its you have bemoaned how you continually have to correct people with their misconceptions of their opinion of the war-- an opinion that may be based on things like reading books, how dare they!.

As for finding references to 'manifest destiny' in the early 19th century I doubt any one will because I seem to remember the term only really around in the 1840's but the notion that it suddenly appears in that decade as an idea is naïve in the extreme it had been around for a long time. For some (and to be fair only some) the invasion of Canada was a major American war aim (for others true it wasn't at all and other Americans disagreed with the idea profoundly)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20173101?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

An interesting article on 'Manifest Destiny' and the war of 1812.

And as I said before the simple answer to the OP is the USA didn't carry on fighting because they hadn't won the war and easily wanted the peace as much as the British----- which quite honestly is hardly a controversial statement and certainly doesn't qualify someone as a Troll .
 
Last edited:
Likes: redcoat

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,714
Stockport Cheshire UK
Do you have a source for this? The British declined an offer to mediate and the US accepted it in late 1812.
The USA went to war to fight for the right of neutrals to trade with any nation they wished to during wartime and to outlaw the tactic of blockade, seeking the mediation of an other neutral nation like Russia a major land power but who had only a small navy and therefore no real interest in this naval tactic, would have given them a very clear advantage.
 
Last edited:

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,102
As far as the treaty being vague on the native American provisions. The native Americans weren't there. It was important for the British not to appear to be selling out an ally for there relations with native American tribes, but also with native allies of the British Empire and even allies in Europe. However, it was appearance was the main thing for the British, so they agreed to vague language that would not bother the US too much.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,102
The USA went to war to fight for the right of neutrals to trade with any nation they wished to during wartime and to outlaw the tactic of blockade, seeking the mediation of an other neutral nation like Russia a major land power but who had only a small navy and therefore no real interest in this naval tactic, would have given them a very clear advantage.
Russia was not neutral in late 1812. It wanted the war over with so Britain could pay full attention to Napoleon.
 
Aug 2018
373
Southern Indiana
Article 9 : “The United States of America engage to put an end immediately after the Ratification of the present Treaty to hostilities with all the Tribes or Nations of Indians with whom they may be at war at the time of such Ratification, and forthwith to restore to such Tribes or Nations respectively all the possessions, rights, and privileges which they may have enjoyed or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and eleven previous to such hostilities. Provided always that such Tribes or Nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities against the United States of America, their Citizens, and Subjects upon the Ratification of the present Treaty being notified to such Tribes or Nations, and shall so desist accordingly. And His Britannic Majesty engages on his part to put an end immediately after the Ratification of the present Treaty to hostilities with all the Tribes or Nations of Indians with whom He may be at war at the time of such Ratification, and forthwith to restore to such Tribes or Nations respectively all the possessions, rights, and privileges, which they may have enjoyed or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and eleven previous to such hostilities. Provided always that such Tribes or Nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities against His Britannic Majesty and His Subjects upon the Ratification of the present Treaty being notified to such Tribes or Nations, and shall so desist accordingly.”
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,714
Stockport Cheshire UK
Russia was not neutral in late 1812. It wanted the war over with so Britain could pay full attention to Napoleon.
As a power that had little interest in naval warfare, Russia would probably have tried to encourage the British to compromise on the maritime issues to end the war, but while the British would have accepted status quo ante bellum even in 1812 they had no intention of compromising on these issues.
 

Similar History Discussions